Are International Organizations Interfering in USA Elections?
Just how much influence do International Organizations have in the election process of the United States of America?
Two fairly recent occurrences have brought this question to the foreground and deserve analysis.
On May 11th 2007 and May 9th 2008, the Dept. of Justice released the following statements:
(Excerpts)
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/May/07_crt_342.html
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today announced that on May 12, 2007, it will monitor local elections in the Denton Independent School District, Fort Bend County, Farmers Branch, and Killeen, Texas, to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/May/08-crt-401.html
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today announced that on Saturday, May 10, 2008, it will monitor local elections in the cities of Farmers Branch and Irving in Dallas County, Texas, to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
The release also states:
Each year, the Justice Department deploys hundreds of federal observers from OPM, as well as departmental staff, to monitor elections across the country. In calendar year 2006, for example, 966 federal observers and 575 Department personnel were sent to monitor 119 elections in 81 jurisdictions in 24 states
But what could cause such interest or concern on the part of the Department of Justice two years running in tiny Farmers Branch Texas? Could the fact that Farmers Branch has been embroiled in a heated immigration battle, between some Hispanic members of the community and local government, be a factor?
What was the impetus for so much attention being given to these particular towns and who or what is pulling the strings?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/justice.elections/
In recent years, attention has shifted to providing unfettered ballot access and voting assistance to tribal and ethnic groups who are entitled to federal protections. Native Americans, Hispanics and Vietnamese voting groups have received the most federal help on Election Day because of incidents of alleged discrimination.
One international organization with a lot of political leverage, financed in large part by the American taxpayer, is the Organization of American States (OAS). This hemispheric organization of 35 countries, including, by treaty, the United States of America, has aspirations of hemispheric integration which the citizens of this country will not appreciate, once it’s cost and agenda is fully understood.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32487.pdf
(Excerpt)
The CRS Report For Congress On Foreign Aid To Latin America
Organization of American States (OAS).
The United States contributes roughly 59% of the regular budget of the OAS. For FY2005, the U.S. contribution to the OAS was $55.7 million. Of the $55.7 million, $45.9 million was for the regular fund, and $9.8 million was to pay tax reimbursements for U.S. employees of the OAS. The FY2006 request for the OAS was $65.9 million. The increase was to cover the cost of taxes owed for U.S. employees that are likely to retire in the coming year.
The United States has also made substantial contributions to a few specific funds developed by the OAS through foreign operations appropriations. The OAS Fund for Strengthening Democracy supports OAS efforts to promote democracy and CRS-31 10 The bulk of these contributions support the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (FEMCIDI). FEMCIDI, financed by voluntary contributions from member states and other assets, contributes to national and multinational development projects. the Inter-American Democratic Charter throughout the region; the FY2005 U.S. contribution was $3 million, while the FY2006 request was for $2.5 million. OAS Development Assistance Programs focus on Summit of the Americas mandates pertaining to economic prosperity, social well being, and environmental health; 10 the FY2005 U.S. contribution was $4.9 million, while the FY2006 request was $5.2 million. The OAS De-mining Program (AICMA) works to ensure that the Western Hemisphere is cleared of all land mine devices; the FY2005 U.S. contribution was $1.8 million, while the FY2006 request was for $1.6 million.
This immense and far reaching organization and some of it’s biggest supporters, including former President Jimmy Carter and George Soros, have monitored the election process of several Latin American countries.
http://www.cartercenter.net/news/documents/doc1996.html
http://www.civil-society.oas.org/
One might begin to wonder if the influence or pressure tactics of the OAS, through non-governmental, civil society organizations or diplomatic avenues, might have initiated the Justice Department’s decision to observe the Texas elections.
This would not be the first case of the OAS meddling in the election affairs of the USA. One case in particular, which could one day have enormous ramifications, would be the DC voting rights case.
On March 16, 2004 Timothy Cooper Sent the following letter to the Chief of Staff for the Helsinki Commission.
http://www.world-rights.org/us/WRhelsinkilet2%20copy.html
(Excerpts)
We are enclosing herewith a copy of the recent decision by the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Case No. 11.204, Statehood Solidarity Committee v. the United States. The decision found that the United States government was violating the fundamental rights of the 570,000 residents of its capital city to equal representation in the US Congress under international human rights law. Since the founding of the city in 1801, District of Columbia residents have been denied equal voting rights in their own national legislature.
This landmark decision, resulting from nearly 11 years of careful deliberation, finds the US government in direct violation of Articles II & XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the governing charter of the OAS and its 35 member states….
….To date, the US government has failed to remedy the violations found by the Commission and DC residents continue to be denied equal political participation in their own national legislature through duly elected representatives….
…In light of the explicit human rights violations found under international law and in view of the fact that the human rights guaranteed in the OAS Charter are identical to those freely undertaken by the United States under its OSCE human dimension obligations, we are requesting that the Helsinki Commission hold hearings at the earliest possible date to monitor and report on the US government’s non-compliance with its OSCE commitments under articles 5.9, 6 and 7.3 of the 1990 Copenhagen Document….we respectfully request that the Helsinki Commission find the US government in violation of its OSCE human dimension commitments….1989 Vienna Concluding Document, which declares, among other things, that all States—including the United States– are obliged to “ensure that their laws, regulations, practices and policies conform with their obligations under international law and are brought into harmony with the provisions of the Declaration on Principles and other CSCE commitments.”
If you read the actual complaint, which I recommend you do, scroll down and look at some of the letter’s recipients. Among them, Presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton, a commissioner of the Helsinki Commission. There are other notables to be found there as well.
This information makes me question if being a Helsinki Commissioner, unless the Helsinki website is not current, while running for the highest office in the land, might be a conflict of interest.
You can visit the Helsinki Website to see which of our representatives are also Helsinki Commissioners. Simply click on the Commissioner link.
http://csce.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutCommission.WorkOfCommission
From the Helsinki Website
(Excerpt)
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, is an independent U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE commitments.
The Inter American Commission on Human Rights’ decision against the USA which Timothy Cooper cited in his complaint to the Helsinki Commission, and their recommendation to correct violations, is contained in the following document:
http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2003eng/USA.11204.htm
(Excerpt)
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES:
119. Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature.
So then, are we to understand that the Inter American Commission on Human Rights is now recommending actions by the United States of America to adopt legislation to correct our voting practices? If that is the case, is the USA obligated, by treaty, to harmonize our laws with that of international law and to comply with their decisions?
How could the Citizens of the United States of America have been obligated to obey the rulings of international bodies which betray the sovereignty of our nation and our Constitution? Where were our elected representatives and who spoke out against these activities?
American Citizens must start to ask these questions insistently and expect legitimate answers. We must actively demand these issues be resolved and put into compliance with our constitution.
We simply cannot afford to blindly trust our government officials to act in the best interest of the Citizen of the United States of America. We have to demand oversight and accountability of our representatives and we must become proactive and very loud in making sure this is accomplished.
References:
The OAS
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas2dec.htm
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
OSCE Human Rights Dimensions
http://www.osce.org/activities/18805.html
Helsinki Final Act
http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html
The Copenhagen Document
http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=2&lid=5513
Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives
http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/viennamtgcsce1986.htm
The Demise Of Our Unique American Identity
http://www.theamericanpresident.org/2008/05/07/the-demise-of-our-unique-american-identity/
As Our Towers Fell
http://www.theamericanpresident.org/2008/05/10/as-our-towers-fell/
Godspeed and God Bless the United States of America
CJ Graham can be reached at:
Popularity: 13% [?]
Anthony, The opinions in your thoughtful article have now been reinforced by the first Presidential debate. This confirmed what ...
There is no such thing as "clean" coal. 
The WOLVES in SHEEPSKIN in Washington DC have us by the throat, what will Americans do now?
Welcome to Socialism!
Hang on ...
Liberals keep assaulting her integrity and I'm sick of it.
Sarah Palin has nothing to hide and it is only beltway ...
Also, view http://www.operationbodycount.com/ to see the daily impact of preventable homicides perpetrated by illegal immigrants. 
sensationalist. manipulative. misleading? i'm not sure. you should look and determine the percentage of violent crimes committed in the U.S. ...
One who has upwards of seven (7-11)homes has no need for an economic plan. He just doesn't get it...that Americans ...
Comment by Timothy Cooper on 8 June 2008:
Not only has the OAS adjudicated the issue of the continuing disenfranchisement of the residents of the District of Columbia, so too has every other relevant international human rights organization to which the United States is party. For instance, in 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee determined that the denial of voting rights to DC residents constituted a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the world’s leading human rights instrument, which was ratified by the US in the early 1990s.
During its 87th session in July 2006, the Committee wrote the following in its Concluding Observations under its authority granted it by article 40 of the International Covenant:
“The Committee, having taken note of the responses provided by the delegation, remains concerned that residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress,
a restriction which does not seem to be compatible with article 25 of the Covenant. (articles 2, 25 and 26)
Its recommendations to the United States were as follows:
“The State party should ensure the right of residents of the District of Columbia to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, in particular with regard to the House of Representatives.”
Moreover, the Organization for Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights followed on in March of 2007, writing in its OSCE/ODHIR Election Assessment Mission Report about the 2006 US Mid-term Congressional Elections:
G. NON-ELIGIBILITY OF U.S. CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF A STATE
Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the people of the several states”. Article 1 further provides that the U.S. Senate consists of “two Senators from each state”. Consequently, U.S. citizens who are not citizens of one of the fifty states are not able to vote for members of Congress who have the right to vote on the floor.71
However, a citizen of a state who is also a resident of a U.S. territory or of the District of
Columbia, depending on the law and election administration practice of the particular state, may be able to exercise voting rights in his or her state of citizenship by absentee ballot. It is, however, estimated72 that in Washington D.C. alone, without including U.S. citizens of U.S. territories, up to half a million U.S. citizens are not permitted to vote in federal elections for full congressional representation. As these citizens are subject to US laws, including taxation, the denial of full representation, as underscored by the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, would appear to be a limitation of voting rights.73
Court cases challenging this situation have been unsuccessful, as court decisions have relied on the explicit word “state” in the text of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.74 Draft legislation, the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, was introduced in Congress in 2005, 2006, and 2007 granting citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress. This legislation has not yet been put to a vote in Congress.
U.S. authorities should consider all possibilities to provide full representation rights for all U.S. citizens.
Finally, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, composed of hundreds of parliamentarians from around the world, passed a unanimous resolution in Washington, DC at their annual assembly in the summer of 2005 that stated:
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly “calls on the US Congress to adopt such legislation as may be necessary to grant the residents of Washington, DC equal voting rights in their national legislature in accordance with its OSCE human dimension commitments.”
69
For example, in Nevada, the contradictory situation has arisen whereby one-time offenders may be barred
from voting, but repeat offenders who now fall under the new legislation are enfranchised.
70
Madison, et al., v. The State of Washington, et al, Case No. 042-33414-4-SEA, in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington, County of King.
71
These restrictions exist even though such U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. federal law and pay federal taxes.
72
http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1503879.
73
Such jurisdictions are granted a “voice” in the U.S. Congress through non-voting Delegates to the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands each elect a Delegate for a two-year term in direct elections. Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner, instead of a
Delegate, for a four-year term in direct elections. Although none can vote on the final passage of legislation,
they can vote in committee hearings and on amendments.
74
See Albaugh v. Tawes, 379 US 27 (1964) and Adams v. Clinton, 531 US 941 (2000).
Comment by John Maszka on 22 June 2008:
Constructive Sovereignty is an emerging international relations theory pioneered by John Maszka intended to address globalization’s increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept. Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state’s own constituency. As each state’s constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms. In this way, international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy while each state’s sovereignty is maintained and respected.